Zwingli’s eucharistic writings: On
the Canon of the Mass (1523); On the same, against Emser (1524); Letter
to Matthew Alber at Reutlingen (1524); The 17th ch. of his Com. on the
True and False Religion (in Latin and German, March 23, 1525); Answer
to Bugenhagen (1525); Letter to Billicanus and Urbanus Rhegius (1526);
Address to Osiander of Nürnberg (1527); Friendly Exegesis,
addressed to Luther (Feb. 20, 1527); Reply to Luther on the true sense
of the words of institution of the Lord’s Supper
(1527); The report on the Marburg Colloquy (1529). In Opera, vol. II.
B., III., IV. 173 sqq.

For an exposition of Zwingli’s
doctrine on the Lord’s Supper and his controversy with
Luther, see vol. VI. 520–550 and
669–682; and A. Baur, Zwingli’s
Theol. II. 268 sqq. (very full and fair).

The eucharistic controversy between Zwingli and
Luther has been already considered in connection with the German
Reformation, and requires only a brief notice here. It lasted from 1524
to 1529, and culminated in the Colloquy at Marburg, where the two views
came into closer contact and collision than ever before or since, and
where every argument for or against the literal interpretation of the
words of institution and the corporal presence was set forth with the
clearness and force of the two champions.

Zwingli and Luther agreed in the principle of a
state-church or people’s church (Volks-Kirche), as
opposed to individualism, separatism, and schism. Both defended the
historic continuity of the Church, and put down the revolutionary
radicalism which constructed a new church on the voluntary principle.
Both retained infant baptism as a part of Christian family religion,
against the Anabaptists, who introduced a new baptism with their new
church of converts. Luther never appreciated this agreement in the
general standpoint, and made at the outset the radical mistake of
confounding Zwingli with Carlstadt and the Radicals.146146 A. Baur (Zw.
Theol., II. 811) says on this misunderstanding: "Luther warf von Anfang an Zwingli mit
Münzer und Karlstadt zusammen. Kein Vorwurf und Vorurtheil
gegen Zwingli ist ungerechter, aber auch kein Vorwurf
glänzender widerlegt, als dieser, und zwar eben durch die
Klarheit und Bestimmtheit, mit welcher Zwingli seine Principien gegen
die Wiedertäufer entfaltet. Im Gegentheil; die maasslose
Subjectivität die bei Münzer, Karlstadt, bei den
Wiedertäufern zum Ausbruch kommt, und die solche
Willkühr bleibt, auch wenn sie sich auf den Buchstaben der
Schrift beruft, ist das vollständige Gegentheil der
Principien Zwingli’s."

But there was a characteristic difference between
the two Reformers in the general theory of the sacraments, and
especially the Lord’s Supper. Zwingli stood midway
between Luther and the Anabaptists. He regarded the sacraments as signs
and seals of a grace already received rather than as means of a grace
to be received. They set forth and confirm, but do not create, the
thing signified. He rejected the doctrine of baptismal regeneration and
of the corporal presence; while Luther adhered to both with intense
earnestness and treated a departure as damnable heresy.
Zwingli’s theory reveals the spiritualizing and
rationalizing tendency of his mind; while Luther’s
theory reveals his realistic and mystical tendency. Yet both were
equally earnest in their devotion to the Scriptures as the Word of God
and the supreme rule of faith and practice.

When they met face to face at
Marburg,—once, and only once, in this
life,—they came to agree in fourteen out of fifteen
articles, and even in the fifteenth article they agreed in the
principal part, namely, the spiritual presence and fruition of
Christ’s body and blood, differing only in regard to
the corporal presence and oral manducation, which the one denied, the
other asserted. Zwingli showed on that occasion marked ability as a
debater, and superior courtesy and liberality as a gentleman. Luther
received the impression that Zwingli was a "very good man,"147147 He called Zwingli
"optimus vir," in a letter to Bullinger, written nine years
later (1538). yet of a "different spirit," and
hence refused to accept his hand of fellowship offered to him with
tears. The two men were differently constituted, differently educated,
differently situated and equipped, each for his own people and country;
and yet the results of their labors, as history has proved, are
substantially the same.